CASE: CAYETANO VS. MONSOD, G.

R NO 100113 (3 SEPTEMBER 1991)

FACTS:

The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C:

"There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six
Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time
of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and
must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately
preceding elections.  However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be
members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years.
Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of
Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission
on Appointments on April 25, 1991. Petitioner opposed the nomination because
allegedly Monsod does... not possess the required qualification of having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Atty. Christian Monsod is a
member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a
grade of 86.55%.  He has been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines since its inception in 1972-73.  He has also been paying his...
professional license fees as a lawyer for more than ten years. (p. 124, Rollo)
After graduating from the College of Law (U.P.) and having hurdled the bar, Atty.
Monsod worked in the law office of his father.  During his stint in the World Bank
Group (1963-1970), Monsod worked as an operations officer for about two years in
Costa Rica and Panama, which involved getting acquainted with the laws of
member-countries, negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic, and project
work of the Bank.  Upon returning to the Philippines in 1970, he worked with the
Meralco Group, served as chief executive officer of an investment bank and
subsequently of a business conglomerate, and since 1986, has rendered services to
various companies as a legal and economic consultant or chief executive officer.  As
former Secretary-General (1986) and National Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL,
Monsod's, work involved being knowledgeable in election law.  He appeared for
NAMFREL in its accredition hearings before the Comelec.  In the field of advocacy,
Monsod, in his personal capacity and as former Co-Chairman of the Bishops
Businessmen's Conference for Human
Development, has worked with the under privileged sectors, such as the farmer and
urban poor groups, in initiating, lobbying for and engaging in affirmative action for the
agrarian reform law and lately the urban land reform bill.  Monsod also made use of
his legal knowledge as a member of the Davide Commission, a guasi-judicial body,
which conducted numerous hearings (1990) and as a member of the Constitutional
Commission (1986-1987), and Chairman of its Committee on Accountability of Public
Officers, for which he was cited by the President of the Commission, Justice Cecilia-
Munoz-Palma for "innumerable amendments to reconcile government functions with
individual freedoms and public accountability and the party-list system for the House
of Representative.
ISSUES:
Whether petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition, praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of
Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void.
Ruling:
The Commission on the basis of evidence submitted during the public hearings on
Monsod's confirmation, implicitly determined that he possessed the necessary
qualifications as required by law.  The judgment rendered by the Commission in the
exercise of such an acknowledged power is beyond judicial interference except only
upon a clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.  (Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution).  Thus, only where such grave abuse of
discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere with the Commission's judgment.
In the instant case, there is no occasion for the exercise of the Court's corrective
power, since no abuse, much less a grave abuse of discretion, that would amount to
lack or excess of jurisdiction and would warrant the issuance of the writs prayed, for
has been clearly shown.